Libellés

dimanche 4 janvier 2015

11- Europe intoxicated by pesticides?

Again,
I delay a publication to make another about a hot subject.

The
real title should be: European public opinion intoxicated by the biased debate
on pesticides? This is less catchy, right?

Under
the title "traffic of banned pesticides is booming," the environmentalist
french website Reporterre feeds a false controversy, itself taken over by
different environmentalists and anti-globalization websites and magazines.

What's
this? The periodic detection of residues not allowed on certain fruits and
vegetables. Despite the publication says, these detections remain at a stable
level of about 2% of the analyzed samples.

On
the website Phyto Forum (the link is also on my blog), you'll find a more
complete explanation of the situation (in french).

I
will not spend time on the issue, it does not show much interest, sincerely.
I'll just add this: once again, the consumer is hijacked by ideological
interests that are rarely explained to him, or through biased publication, in
which it is said only a part of the truth, but just the part that scares. And
fear is an extremely powerful mean for action and mobilization. It allows a full
manipulation of public opinion by leaving reflected only the dark side of
things.

What
I want to write today, it is a post about European failures that lead us to
unmanageable situations. I specify that I am pro-European, and even federalist,
so that there is no ambiguity. That does not prevent me from having a critical
eye.

Back
to the topic at hand, pesticides.

There
is an EU Regulation, the 1107/2009, which affirms the principle of
harmonization of EU phytosanitary regulations. But member states are masters at
home, as regards national regulations, under that Regulation.

What
are the consequences? They are numerous and perverse.

-Each
member state is free to allow the molecules to crops he wants within it prefers
with doses and time of use it considers appropriate.

-The
manufacturer who must pay the registration dossiers, in each country, will
choose the most represented local crops for probate, leaving secondary crops.

-Farmers
can then seek approval of these molecules for secondary uses. These are crops
that manufacturers and administrations have not included initially in the
approvals. But this point is very complex and changes a lot from one country to
another.

-The
principle of reciprocity in theory allows to simplify approval procedures. For
example, Germany has authorized a new substance on apple. Portugal may ask to
Germany any existing information in order to facilitate the approval process of
the same substance, on the same crop, in its territory. But it works very
badly, and national ministries do not like to reduce their own workload.

-Any
plant protection product, unauthorized on a specific crop, is forbidden to use
on this crop. Non-authorization amounts to a ban. This is true for all
products, even allowed on near other crops. For example, a product, authorized on
apple, is not necessarily allowed on pear. Similarly, a product can be
authorized on orange, but not on lemon or tangerine.

Thus, a
producer of strawberry in France, will not have the same products authorized a
strawberry producer in Spain, or a product, approved on apricot in France, will
be allowed on tomato in Italy, but not in Holland. The result is a chaotic
regulation, where everything should have been simplified.

But
the farmer continues to produce and has to solve problems on his crops.

Basic crops,
such as wheat, potatoes, grapes, apples and corn, have no problem. These are crops,
present in large quantities in all European countries. Similarly, citrus or
olive, have no problem in Spain.

By
cons, citrus in France, or parsnips, saffron, blueberries, quinoa, stevia,
buckwheat, and all the old fruits, vegetables and cereals, so fashionable in
recent years are classified as "orphans uses" and almost do not have
any authorization.

The large majority
of unauthorized residues detected cases, derived from this fact. It is not a
problem of unauthorized substances in Europe, but unauthorized uses on crops,
of authorized substances in Europe.

As you
can see, it has nothing to do, because each product approved in Europe went
through the screening and tests process on health and environment, which is the
strictest in the world.

The legal problem has nothing to do with it, and nobody is trying to poisonconsumers.
Against by many people trying to poison the political and social debate,
especially now, on the eve of the European elections. And it works very well
with subjects that scare.

The
European Community would do well to ask the right questions about the
functioning of its administration, and should ensure that citizens are
adequately informed. On the other hand, it should act quickly to ensure that
regulations, intended to simplify the lives of Europeans, do not complicate
them because national administrative burdens and complexities.

It would probably save that debate be polluted or poisoned by this
kind of nonsense.